“Energiewende – CO2 emissions are rising, not falling as promised and predicted.

If “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed. And what an expensive failure it is.”

Germany has long been held up as the poster child for wind and solar power, but the picture is now more tragedy, than triumph.

In Germany, around €130 billion has already been burnt on renewable subsidies; currently the green energy levy costs power consumers €56 million every day. And, the level of subsidy for wind and solar sees Germans paying €20 billion a year for power that gets sold on the power exchange for around €2 billion.

Squandering €18 billion a year on power – which Germans have in abundance from meaningful sources – has them asking the fair and reasonable question: just how much power are they getting for the €billions that they’ve thrown – and continue to throw at wind and solar? The answer – at a piddling 3.3% – is: NOT MUCH.

Black Thursday, February 6th. 1851, as depicted by William Strutt in 1864

The Black Thursday bushfires were a devastating series of fires that swept through Victoria on February 6, 1851. They are considered the largest Australian bushfires in a populous region in recorded history, with approximately 5 million hectares, or a quarter of Victoria, being burnt. Twelve lives were lost, along with one million sheep and thousands of cattle.

The year preceding the fires was exceptionally hot and dry and this trend continued into the summer of 1851. On Black Thursday, a northerly wind set in early and the temperature in Melbourne was reported to have peaked at 47.2 degrees C (117 degrees F) at 11:00am.

“The temperature became torrid, and on the morning of the 6th of February 1851, the air which blew down from the north resembled the breath of a furnace. A fierce wind arose, gathering strength and velocity from hour to hour, until about noon it blew with the violence of a tornado. By some inexplicable means it wrapped the whole country in a sheet of flame — fierce, awful, and irresistible.” (Wikipedia / Climatism bolds).

CLIMATE change alarmists, like Tim Flannery and the ABC, claim Australian bush fires are unprecedented and becoming more extreme, thanks to human carbon dioxide “pollution” emissions.

THEY tell you this because the ultimate prize of the eco-activist is the control of carbon dioxide (energy). Virtually every human activity, including breathing, releases carbon dioxide. Consequently, greenhouse gases have become weaponised through the fear of “catastrophic climate change” in the “sustainability” (sic) effort to control all aspects of your life.

THE back-pedalling by climate ‘scientists’ continues as it becomes ever more obvious that their alarming projections have been deliberately exaggerated to push an agenda far removed from reality.

THE refined estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled) is even more significant considering that recent emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed, according to scientists.

Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’

Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to man-made emissions than previously feared, a study has found. It raises hopes that the worst predictions about global warming can be avoided.

It suggests that the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed.

Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.

However, the study makes clear that steep reductions in emissions will still be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It also concludes that the aspirational target in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C is less likely to be achieved.

The study, published in the journal Nature, refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature.

It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.

The concentration has already increased by about 50 per cent since pre-industrial times, from 270 parts per million (ppm) to 403ppm.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body which advises governments, gives a range for ECS of 1.5–4.5 degrees C. The new study narrows this range to 2.2–3.4C.

Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper, said his team had “squeezed both ends” of the range presented by the IPCC.

“We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don’t need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.

“That’s useful because it gives policymakers and people an idea of what they have got to deal with and they can make decisions on that basis.”

Mr Cox said his study showed there was less need to worry about apocalyptic visions of the future, such as those presented in the 2007 award-winning science book Six Degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which had an image on the cover of a tidal wave breaking over Big Ben.

“The very high warming rates are looking less likely so that’s good news,” he said.

“Unless we do something bizarrely stupid, we are not looking at catastrophic climate change.

“But I wouldn’t want people to think we don’t need to act. It means that action is worthwhile. We can still stabilise the system if we choose to do so.

“We are definitely up against it but we aren’t in a position where we are talking about such large climate changes that we are just messing around on the decks of the Titanic. We know better now, I hope, from our work what we have got to do.”

He said his study showed the 2C target set in Paris was “still just about achievable” but limiting warming to 1.5C in the long term could only be achieved by “overshooting” and then somehow reducing the temperature using futuristic technology, such as artificial trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said the study “confirms that we will see significantly more warming and impacts this century if we don’t increase our ambition to reduce CO2 emissions; but the possibility of 6 degrees or more warming with associated devastating impacts can perhaps begin to be ruled out”.

“PLANTS convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into energy in the form of sugars, which they can use to fuel any number of vital life processes. As more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, plants have an opportunity to produce a bounty of new energy.”

From FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY and the “but wait, all climate change must be bad!” department.

Climate change linked to more flowery forests, FSU study shows

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — New research from a Florida State University scientist has revealed a surprising relationship between surging atmospheric carbon dioxide and flower blooms in a remote tropical forest.

FSU researchers studying the rich tropical forests of Panama’s Barro Colorado Island found that climbing rates of carbon dioxide have set the stage for a multidecade increase in overall flower production.

The findings were outlined in a paper published in the journal Global Change Biology

“It’s really remarkable,” said Assistant Professor of Geography Stephanie Pau, who led the study. “Over the past several decades, we’ve seen temperatures warming and carbon dioxide increasing, and our study found that this tropical forest has responded to that increase by producing more flowers.”

““Do as I say, but don’t pay attention to what I actually do” is the trademark of climate change policy. The Trump administration took a different approach and told it like it is: Paris is a costly, meaningless non-solution.”

Strong economic growth is a critical reason why Germany is very likely to miss its target.

A leaked document from Germany’s Environmental Ministry projected the country will miss its carbon emissions goal under the Paris climate accords by 8 percent without additional action. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Germany has an aggressive plan to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020. Last November, a leaked document from the country’s Environmental Ministry projected the country would miss the…

TWITTER has become a hotbed of debate between staunch believers of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and those sceptical of the supposed adverse impacts of mankind’s energy emissions on planet Earth.

THERE is little grey area or middle-ground in often heated debates, with the CAGW camp blaming the burning of fossil fuels, namely coal, not only for a >1 degree celsius warming of the atmosphere since 1850, but on literally anything and everything that moves, shifts, spins or tilts upon contact with colourless, odourless, tasteless, non-reactive, trace gas and plant food carbon dioxide!

HERE’S s a list of everything caused by global warming climate change as of 2012:

ANY good scientist is a sceptic; if he or she is not, then he or she should not be a scientist. But yet the language of the global warming alarmist, is to accuse anyone who does not believe in man-made climate change as a “denier”, a heretic, a blasphemer. This is the language of religion, not science.

SCEPTICS do not ‘deny’ the existence “climate change” or “global warming”. The earth’s average temperature has been increasing and decreasing since the beginning of time. A climate sceptic is basically ‘sceptical’ of how much of the recent warming can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels versus natural variation. And, in fact, any slight warming might actually be beneficial. After all, cold weather is twenty times more deadly than hot weather, according to a study published in the British journal The Lancet.

MOREOVER, sceptics acknowledge the remarkable benefits of the essential gas-of-life, carbon dioxide, that has become so politically demonised with a religious zeal rivalling the Spanish Inquisition.

MOORE looks at the historical record of CO2 in our atmosphere and concludes that we came dangerously close to losing plant life on Earth about 18,000 years ago, when CO2 levels approached 150 ppm, below which plant life can’t sustain photosynthesis. He notes:

A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be described as “the balance of nature”.

“StormSignalSA” is a rancher and climate sceptic from the great land of South Africa. A recent tweet of his captured the attention of many for a wonderful response to a climate catastrophist who derided “Storm” for his stance on coal.

IT is a brilliant retort in defence of Mother Nature’s mighty black rock that has allowed us to improve human well-being and make the world a better place…

ALTERNATIVE energy sources, “unreliables“, are either too expensive, too difficult to access, or simply too inefficient to achieve any meaningful results for the most impoverished.

A huge energy source it is too. The same energy fuels this African in my efforts to stop the madness, the genocide even, whilst doing my bit to feed the 7 billion.I once wrote this to a christian disciple of the church of climatology. pic.twitter.com/H0Yx5zP8JL

THAT ye-olde cliché again – “Do as I say, not as I do!” And, what is wrong with Skype to save on those evil plant food CO2 emissions? Worst case scenario, the climate obsessed mainstream media does a years worth of climate industry lobbying in a single day, for free!

Image credit: emeraldmedia.co.ukAnother example of how the ‘climate industry’ is out of control. 25,000 attendees sounds more like a sports event.

The thousands who flocked to Germany for the United Nations climate summit will end up, rather ironically, emitting thousands of tons of the very greenhouse gases attendees want to regulate, writes Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller.

The U.N. admits the “lion’s share of greenhouse gas emissions” associated with their latest climate summit, and up to 25,000 people are expected to attend the U.N. summit in Bonn, which kicked off Monday.